Review jurisdiction can't be exercised where no error is apparent on the record.

The applicants, Union of India (respondents in the original O.A.), filed a Review Application seeking to recall and review an order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2418/2017

The original O.A. was filed by Hemraj Singh and others (respondents in the R.A.) who sought promotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistant/Executive Assistant, alleging discrimination as their counterparts received promotions without qualifying a departmental examination

The Tribunal, in its order dated 24.08.2023, found that two cadres had merged on 20.05.2014, prior to the promotion of the applicants' counterparts on 30.09.2014, and thus the applicants were similarly placed and entitled to the same relaxation benefit

This finding was based on an additional affidavit sworn by a Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax (Vigilance & Litigation)

The review petitioners argued that the order suffered from patent errors, including findings contrary to pleadings and the merger scheme, and that the implementation was impossible given recruitment rules

The respondents in the R.A. contended that the application was time-barred, having been filed in December 2024 for an order passed on 24.08.2023, and that it merely re-argued the original case without disclosing any apparent error

They also noted that an earlier Writ Petition filed by the review applicants was withdrawn without liberty to file a Review Application

Whether the Review Application is barred by limitation due to unexplained delay

Whether the original order demonstrates any patent error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new material to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction

Whether the Review Application constitutes an impermissible re-argument of the original case rather than a legitimate request for review

The Tribunal primarily applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Both provisions limit review to circumstances such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason

The Tribunal also referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *UOI vs. Tarit Ranjan Das*, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, and *State of West Bengal & others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another*, 2008 (3) AISLJ 209, specifically concerning the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and the impermissibility of treating a review as an appeal

The Tribunal found that the Review Application was filed with significant and unexplained delay, being submitted in December 2024 for an order dated 24.08.2023, and noted that an earlier Writ Petition against the original order was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a review

The court emphasized that the grounds for review, primarily errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material, were not met

The original decision was based on a factual finding, supported by an affidavit from a Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, that the cadres had merged before the promotions in question

The arguments presented in the Review Application were essentially a repetition of points previously considered or an attempt to re-argue the merits of the case, which is not permissible under the limited scope of review jurisdiction

The Tribunal reiterated that its power of review is not an appellate power, an observation reinforced by Supreme Court precedents

It concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice or travesty of law to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction

No new points of fact or law were brought forward that were not previously considered, and the original decision was based on fact-finding without any apparent error on the face of the record or discovery of new material

The Tribunal held that the review applicants were attempting to re-argue the case, which is not permissible under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of CPC, and various Supreme Court judgments

There was no order as to costs